Therefore there can be no doubt that the bomber will be kept in prison rather than executed. No way a liberal state will be able to oppose the death penalty (esp when they made it state law)..... and then turn around to execute the bomber. Must be consistent.

errr...yeah, I agree with all that. You point seems to be that this makes Massachusetts somehow hypocritical I guess, but that's silly and incorrect, but whatever makes you happy.

But it does. When a state outlaws the death penalty and the citizens don't revive it, I can only surmise that they citizens don't want it. (Or don't want it enough to re-instate it). But I'm betting my last dollar that even most ardent opponents there want Dzhokar executed. This isn't hard to follow.

It's like anything else in politics: it's all local. When something directly affects me, I take notice. But not unless. The bomber affected them.

But it does. When a state outlaws the death penalty and the citizens don't revive it, I can only surmise that they citizens don't want it. (Or don't want it enough to re-instate it). But I'm betting my last dollar that even most ardent opponents there want Dzhokar executed. This isn't hard to follow.

It's like anything else in politics: it's all local. When something directly affects me, I take notice. But not unless. The bomber affected them.

Your point makes no sense when one realizes that Massachusetts' failure to reinstate the death penalty means all of the crimes occurring in Massachusetts that aren't subject to federal jurisdiction are going to be subject to a maximum of life in jail. There's no "let's vote Democrats into the White House but Republicans into our local legislature/governorship" thing going on here, or opposition to pork except pork that benefits us.

__________________
"I love signature blocks on the Internet. I get to put whatever the hell I want in quotes, pick a pretend author, and bang, it's like he really said it." George Washington

I note that I'm not anti-death penalty. Even 15-20 years ago, when I was much more liberal than I am now, I was at best wishy-washy on it. Now I'm definitely pro death.

Note that England had something like 100 separate death penalty offenses back about 100 years ago and it didn't dramatically deter crime. The simple fact is that the death penalty isn't really all that great a deterrent. No criminal really says to themselves "welp, if I do this crime then I'd get life in jail without parole so that's ok, but this other crime over here is death penalty and no way, **** that!!"

It's just not really a thought process that criminals seem to go through. They all tend to assume they won't get caught anyway, so the punishment doesn't really matter much in terms of deterrence, with ONE exception -- prisoners already in jail for life. A prisoner facing multiple life sentences is harder to control since you can't really do anything more to him. In a death penalty state, however....

In a situation where somebody does a terrorist act for islamic jihad, like the Tsarnaev brothers claim. Seems to me the better political move after one gets killed during apprehension, is to let the other one serve a life sentence.

If his death sentence execution day is announced, that could be a day, or anniversary, that some other crusader tries to blow something up.

Or the death sentence execution might be used to recruit some other losers into jihad.

In a situation where somebody does a terrorist act for islamic jihad, like the Tsarnaev brothers claim. Seems to me the better political move after one gets killed during apprehension, is to let the other one serve a life sentence.

If his death sentence execution day is announced, that could be a day, or anniversary, that some other crusader tries to blow something up.

Or the death sentence execution might be used to recruit some other losers into jihad.

In a situation where somebody does a terrorist act for islamic jihad, like the Tsarnaev brothers claim. Seems to me the better political move after one gets killed during apprehension, is to let the other one serve a life sentence.

If his death sentence execution day is announced, that could be a day, or anniversary, that some other crusader tries to blow something up.

Or the death sentence execution might be used to recruit some other losers into jihad.

Don't think his execution increases violence one iota. Crackpots will pick a different day to "celebrate" by blowing up innocent victims, and losers will be recruited to jihad for "better" reasons (in their mind) than "they executed the marathon bomber"

__________________
"I love signature blocks on the Internet. I get to put whatever the hell I want in quotes, pick a pretend author, and bang, it's like he really said it." George Washington

Don't think his execution increases violence one iota. Crackpots will pick a different day to "celebrate" by blowing up innocent victims, and losers will be recruited to jihad for "better" reasons (in their mind) than "they executed the marathon bomber"

Good points.

Saw a bit of abcnews tonight. Their mother apparently still thinks their innocent. Wonder if this guy plans on telling his parents that he is a jihadi warrior.

They said that she is facing a shoplifting charge for about $1,500.00 worth of merchandise from Lord & Taylor if she comes back.

Your point makes no sense when one realizes that Massachusetts' failure to reinstate the death penalty means all of the crimes occurring in Massachusetts that aren't subject to federal jurisdiction are going to be subject to a maximum of life in jail. There's no "let's vote Democrats into the White House but Republicans into our local legislature/governorship" thing going on here, or opposition to pork except pork that benefits us.

It kinda means they didn't want their state to take lives. Since that's all they can control. They cannot control Federal decisions can they? Therefore what relevance does it have what the Feds do here? I'm talking about what THEY want for their state. And I'm betting anything they oppose it in principle, but not in practice